Loading…

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland

To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490
Main Authors: Mewes, Janne C, Lindenberg, Melanie, Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923
container_end_page e0270490
container_issue 6
container_start_page e0270490
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Mewes, Janne C
Lindenberg, Melanie
Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M
description To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0270490
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2686270039</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A708505543</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ee1d2069a35e46f8ae762655d44fa8b7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A708505543</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9GK1DAUhoso7rr6BoIFQfSiY9I0aXsjLIOuAwsLrnob0vSkk6FNxiRdHd_AtzbdqbKVvZBc5JB85z85PzlJ8hyjFSYlfruzozOiX-2tgRXKS1TU6EFyimuSZyxH5OGd-CR54v0OIUoqxh4nJ4SWjFBUnia_1taHDJQCGfQNGPA-FVH24LVPrUr1sO9hABO06VIvHYCZImvSvYMAbpj2DGQvhr3XIhUhVdr5kAanB_CRmFQi0xlh5CHVJr2IWcIcYpk2vf6uw09wfYyfJo-U6D08m_ez5MuH95_XH7PLq4vN-vwyk4zVIZMCYdrURAlJoYKGlbSBvCkLShArRIGZqhSu66phFGHVtLSUklJc5SXgos7JWfLiqLvvreezi57nrGLRRETqSGyORGvFju9jI8IduBWa3x5Y13HhgpY9cADc5ojVglAoYmUBJcsZpW1RKFE1ZdR6N1cbmwFaGZ10ol-ILm-M3vLO3vD40rpgNAq8ngWc_TZGR_mgvYQ-WgZ2vH03rnCeFziiL_9B7-9upjoRG9BG2VhXTqL8vEQVRZQWJFKre6i4Whi0jF9O6Xi-SHizSIhMgB-hE6P3fHP96f_Zq69L9tUddguiD1tv-zFoa_wSLI6gdNZ7B-qvyRjxaWL-uMGnieHzxJDfG98JLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2686270039</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><creator>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creator><contributor>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M ; Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270490</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35763507</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aspirin ; Blood pressure ; Cost analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Costs ; Diagnosis ; Diagnosis related groups ; Disease prevention ; DRGs ; Drug dosages ; Economic analysis ; Economic aspects ; Economic models ; Evaluation ; Health aspects ; Health care ; Health risks ; Medical care, Cost of ; Medical screening ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Obstetrics ; Parameter sensitivity ; People and Places ; Pre-eclampsia ; Preeclampsia ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Premature birth ; Prenatal care ; Sensitivity analysis ; Social Sciences ; Stillbirth ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Mewes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Mewes et al 2022 Mewes et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2686270039/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2686270039?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindenberg, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><title>PloS one</title><description>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</description><subject>Aspirin</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis related groups</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>DRGs</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Medical care, Cost of</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Parameter sensitivity</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Pre-eclampsia</subject><subject>Preeclampsia</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Premature birth</subject><subject>Prenatal care</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Stillbirth</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9GK1DAUhoso7rr6BoIFQfSiY9I0aXsjLIOuAwsLrnob0vSkk6FNxiRdHd_AtzbdqbKVvZBc5JB85z85PzlJ8hyjFSYlfruzozOiX-2tgRXKS1TU6EFyimuSZyxH5OGd-CR54v0OIUoqxh4nJ4SWjFBUnia_1taHDJQCGfQNGPA-FVH24LVPrUr1sO9hABO06VIvHYCZImvSvYMAbpj2DGQvhr3XIhUhVdr5kAanB_CRmFQi0xlh5CHVJr2IWcIcYpk2vf6uw09wfYyfJo-U6D08m_ez5MuH95_XH7PLq4vN-vwyk4zVIZMCYdrURAlJoYKGlbSBvCkLShArRIGZqhSu66phFGHVtLSUklJc5SXgos7JWfLiqLvvreezi57nrGLRRETqSGyORGvFju9jI8IduBWa3x5Y13HhgpY9cADc5ojVglAoYmUBJcsZpW1RKFE1ZdR6N1cbmwFaGZ10ol-ILm-M3vLO3vD40rpgNAq8ngWc_TZGR_mgvYQ-WgZ2vH03rnCeFziiL_9B7-9upjoRG9BG2VhXTqL8vEQVRZQWJFKre6i4Whi0jF9O6Xi-SHizSIhMgB-hE6P3fHP96f_Zq69L9tUddguiD1tv-zFoa_wSLI6gdNZ7B-qvyRjxaWL-uMGnieHzxJDfG98JLQ</recordid><startdate>20220628</startdate><enddate>20220628</enddate><creator>Mewes, Janne C</creator><creator>Lindenberg, Melanie</creator><creator>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220628</creationdate><title>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</title><author>Mewes, Janne C ; Lindenberg, Melanie ; Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aspirin</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis related groups</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>DRGs</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Medical care, Cost of</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Parameter sensitivity</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Pre-eclampsia</topic><topic>Preeclampsia</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Premature birth</topic><topic>Prenatal care</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Stillbirth</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mewes, Janne C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindenberg, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale_Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mewes, Janne C</au><au>Lindenberg, Melanie</au><au>Vrijhoef, Hubertus J. M</au><au>Mahumud, Rashidul Alam</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-06-28</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0270490</spage><epage>e0270490</epage><pages>e0270490-e0270490</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland. A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted. The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were [euro]14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were [euro]3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of [euro]4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy. For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be [euro]14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35763507</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0270490</doi><tpages>e0270490</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-4671</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0270490-e0270490
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2686270039
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PubMed Central(OpenAccess)
subjects Aspirin
Blood pressure
Cost analysis
Cost benefit analysis
Costs
Diagnosis
Diagnosis related groups
Disease prevention
DRGs
Drug dosages
Economic analysis
Economic aspects
Economic models
Evaluation
Health aspects
Health care
Health risks
Medical care, Cost of
Medical screening
Medicine and Health Sciences
Obstetrics
Parameter sensitivity
People and Places
Pre-eclampsia
Preeclampsia
Pregnancy
Pregnant women
Premature birth
Prenatal care
Sensitivity analysis
Social Sciences
Stillbirth
Womens health
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in Germany and Switzerland
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A36%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness%20analysis%20of%20implementing%20screening%20on%20preterm%20pre-eclampsia%20at%20first%20trimester%20of%20pregnancy%20in%20Germany%20and%20Switzerland&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Mewes,%20Janne%20C&rft.date=2022-06-28&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0270490&rft.epage=e0270490&rft.pages=e0270490-e0270490&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0270490&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA708505543%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-ca015b93fac5e8eb675be2b7453064a416f8f1998b6501fbd57cc551827e14923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2686270039&rft_id=info:pmid/35763507&rft_galeid=A708505543&rfr_iscdi=true